Pension measure headed to June ballot, for now

Council clears the way for initiative but weighs timing, legal consequences

San Diego  The City Council on Monday moved to place on the ballot a proposal that would fundamentally overhaul the city’s public employee pension system, a month after proponents collected the requisite number of signatures to qualify the measure.

The 5-3 vote essentially clears the way for the Comprehensive Pension Reform initiative to go before voters in the June 5 primary election. It came amid heavy jostling from opponents who pushed for placing it on the November ballot, citing higher turnout among voters and the potential to save the city money.

The council may move the measure to a later election, but could face legal repercussions for doing so, City Attorney Jan Goldsmith confirmed Monday. The initiative — crafted by Mayor Jerry Sanders and Councilmen Carl DeMaio and Kevin Faulconer — would end guaranteed pensions for all new city hires except police officers. They would receive a 401(k)-style plan instead.

Labor unions and the Democratic council majority have opposed the measure.

“This is going to be on the June ballot. I’ll tell you that right now,” said DeMaio, adding that the city would expose itself to a legal challenge by attempting to put the measure before voters in November. “…The dates in this measure are extremely clear that the presumption is that these voters are going to have an opportunity to vote yes or no in June.”

More important than avoiding potential legal costs is the matter of violating the public’s trust, said DeMaio. who has made the initiative the centerpiece of his mayoral campaign.

“Anyone who stands in the way of this measure being put on a June vote is sending a message to all those San Diegans who signed this ballot measure that you do not respect their right of initiative,” he said.

As required under state law, the Registrar of Voters had reviewed a sample of the 144,907 signatures submitted and estimated more than 115,000 were from registered city voters, many more than the 94,346 needed to qualify for the ballot.

Councilwoman Marti Emerald said scheduling the vote in November — an election where presumably more Democrats would be able weigh in on it — could save “at least $150,000 of taxpayers’ money.”

Cost estimates of a five-page measure in June were between $556,000 and $649,000, officials said.

“And, as everybody on this council knows, anybody who is out there in the community trying to make dollars stretch for our services, $150,000, at the least, could go a very long way to keeping libraries open, rec centers open, keeping our police on the street, fire services and the list goes on," Emerald said.

She also provided local figures showing that fewer people participated in primaries than general elections.

“I am asking my colleagues not to jettison the proposal entirely, even though I am not a supporter,” Emerald said. “But if we are going to put this on the ballot, let’s be fair to voters in scheduling it at a time when most voters will be able to turn out and have their opinion heard.”

She was joined by council members David Alvarez and Tony Young in opposition.

The council action on Monday was essentially pro forma, but it provided a glimpse at the pending battle to ensue over the measure. Among the questions were whether Goldsmith could objectively perform his duties, including preparing official language, after appearing at a press conference alongside proponents of the measure.

“If there’s one thing we’ve proven to you in the last three years (it’s) that we are professional lawyers, that our personal options mean absolutely nothing,” Goldsmith said, adding that his office has a quality control process.

The City Attorney’s Office produced a legal opinion about the pensionable-pay portion well before the initiative began. Goldsmith said he’s never given an opinion on the measure and pledged not to do so in the future.

Council members will hold another hearing next month to call the primary election. They then would need to adopt an ordinance regarding the measure, technically an amendment to the City Charter, which would include the specific question to put to voters.